Let me make it absolutely clear
that contrary to some reports at no point have we asked for relief from
corporation tax. We have simply pointed out that in undertaking an analysis of
the different economic factors that affect public and private sector providers
of care, corporation tax is one of those factors that impacts on the private sector,
but not on the public sector. We have also made clear that we recognise there
are factors that work the other way and we now wait to see how Monitor's wholly
independent and impartial analysis concludes the various factors "net
out" and whether anything can or should be done about that overall, in the
interests of patients not of providers", that being Monitor's remit.

You may not have seen Monitor's
statement today, which makes their position on corporation tax clear and is
indeed what we expected. It says:

"There is no draft report of the Fair Playing Field
Review and Monitor does not intend to provide a running commentary on the
review. Monitor has yet to decide what recommendations it will make to
the Secretary of State. However in the light of recent media speculation,
Monitor has decided to clarify the position on one specific issue. While it is
the case that corporation tax is one of many distortions that the review is
looking at, Monitor will not be recommending that private sector providers
should be exempt from paying corporation tax."

Answers to Questions

The Guardian recently revealed
how tax breaks were part of the first draft of the review, seen by a 'source' -

The submission you made, which a source has handed to me shows your
organisation pushed for this to be looked at as part of the review. Comment:Our submissions
in response to public consultations are assumed to be in the public domain
anyway and we are happy to share them with anyone who asks to see them.

You state how: 'The issues of a 'Fair Playing Field') must be viewed
dispassionately through the lens of impartial and quantified economic analysis'
However, despite the emphasis on 'economic analysis', no additional information
was provided to suggest how they reached the 2/3% figure stated in their submission.
Q. To what do you base this figure on? A.
The full OHE study was provided as a formal annex to our submission and
provides the basis for this analysis.

You also mention concerns over the NHS brand and how this may unduly lead to
favourtism as the public trust the name. Q. This is why you attach the
NHS to your name? A.No, our name reflects the fact that we work in partnership
with the NHS and are part of the NHS Confederation.

The NHSPN considers that the most illuminating piece of
independent work on this complex subject was done in 2009 by the Office of
Health Economics. This was part-funded by you. Q. Should this be seen as
bias? A. No. The
report was co-funded by the NHS Confederation and the report itself makes
completely clear that it was wholly independent. It went through OHE's normal
peer review processes. We played no part in the actual study and we have no
doubt that OHE would take any allegations to the contrary very seriously.

You mention that various public attitude research has shown 'remarkably
clearly' that patients are less concerned about who provides care provided it
is free at the point of delivery and meets NHS standards. Q. Are you
referring to a survey you paid for that was conducted by Brunswick? A.Yes,
supported by other authoritative independent reports which also indicate that most
of the public are not worried about who provides their care as long as it is
free at the point of delivery and is of high quality. For example, The Provider
Diversity poll, (Confederation of British Industry, 2009); and British Social
Attitudes 2009 (Sage Publishing, January 2009).

You state that private companies are subject to different regulatory regimes
but fail to mention FOI. Q. Would your members be willing to be subject
to Freedom of Information and thus being more transparent to the public?A. If there was a general application of FoI to all
organisations that are not public sector but have dealings with the public
sector, we would of course accept that position. Unless that is the case there
is no reason for us to be treated differently to any other non-public sector
organisation. The NHS Partners Network fully adheres to the NHS Confederation's
policies and practices on transparency.

The submission, shows how you consider training and medical education as not
being relevant to the 'Fair Playing Field' despite as you admit, many of your
members benefiting from this training. Q. Why should this be left
out? A.We do in
fact recognise there is a legitimate discussion about medical education and
training but there is a need for a much fuller and longer analysis of the
issues before any conclusions can be reached. The independent sector also
undertakes extensive medical education and training which has not been
generally understood or recognised and this also needs to be taken into
account.

Given your challenge to the public sector over the issues of pensions,
training, medical education and the NHS 'brand' Q. Can you see why the
public may view your behaviour as devisive and against collaboration? A. We have not
"challenged" the public sector on these or any other "fair
playing field" issues. We have simply sought to identify and quantify
factors which may mean that, should commissioners wish in the interests of
patients, to use alternative providers, then economic factors do not
prevent them from doing so in practice.Establishing
a fair playing field will in practice facilitate collaboration.

Your document that was a feedback to members during the Health bill 'pause'
stated: 'I had a second lengthy meeting with Stephen to discuss the position
with him last week, under the auspices of "Reform", with only a
handful of other (all like-minded) people present, including 'David Bennett,
the chair of Monitor. He has also consistently taken the same line as us
throughout.' Q. Are you confidant this connection you have with Mr
Bennett will result in a favourable report?A.
We are confident that Monitor will produce a properly considered and completely
independent and impartial report and we will, like everyone else, have to wait
and see what it actually says.